Monday, May 12, 2014

Reuters says on Allegations and contentious or vituperative attacks: We can never allow our sources to make allegations, contentious statements or vituperative attacks behind a cloak of anonymity. It weakens our credibility and gives the sources an opportunity to benefit at our expense. It is fundamentally unfair to the other party and thus biased. If quoting unnamed sources on one side of a conflict about what is happening on the other side, use them only for facts, not opinions. If a source wants to make a vituperative attack on an individual, organisation, company or country he or she must speak on the record. We may waive this rule only if the source is a senior official making a considered policy statement which is obviously newsworthy. A story must make clear both that the informant has volunteered the information and that he or she is an official. If the person will not speak on that basis we should not use the story. Such a story might begin: "Gaul accused Rome on Wednesday of practicing genocide against its ethnic minorities." The second paragraph would then read something like this: "In news briefing a government official, who declined to be identified, said...". Reference: Reuters Handbook of Journalism http://www.trust.org/contentAsset/raw-data/652966ab-c90b-4252-b4a5-db8ed1d438ce/file

Recently the Judiciary has allowed Zaid Hamid petition in SC against Jang Group and SAFMA wherein he alleges that certain people in Jang Group are Anti Pakistan and on this the Jang Group has reacted and started asking 20 questions, I would just quote from Jang Group very own archives wherein the Group Editor of the News Mr. Shaheen Sehabi, Resident Editor The News Islamabad Mohammad Malick (who is now MD PTV) and their countless minions --> and they call themselves Journalists uloaded similar Allegation without even a formal enquiry and they not only influenced the Judiciary by relaying 24/7 Marathon Transmission loaded with worse king of mudslinging, misreporting and highly unethical campaign on a matter which was in the court of law and that too without any genuine legal ground, read the news and watch the footage & do note the Imran Khan and Mohammad Malick (now MD PTV and then resident editor The News of Jang Group) connivance in Memogate and also note the use of word "Traitor" by Khawaja Muhammad Asif.

The PML-N Friday, through a Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA), requested the Supreme Court that Pakistan’s High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hassan; Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor, The News, and Muhammad Malick, Editor, The News, Islamabad, also be made respondents in the memo case being taken up for hearing from December 19. ISLAMABAD: The PML-N Friday, through a Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA), requested the Supreme Court that Pakistan’s High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hassan; Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor, The News, and Muhammad Malick, Editor, The News, Islamabad, also be made respondents in the memo case being taken up for hearing from December 19. In their petition, PML-N leader Ishaq Dar and Khwaja Asif contended that an impression was created by the civil authorities that Pakistan knew nothing about the Abbottabad operation in advance. However, they stated that Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor of The News, in his story on December 8, 2011, while quoting interviews of Pakistan’s High Commissioner in UK, Wajid Shamsul Hassan, with CNN, BBC and NDTV revealed that Pakistan had known about the May 2 raid at least 8 to 10 days in advance. The report further revealed that Pakistan knew the operation was going to happen and assisted in terms of authorisation of the helicopter flights in our space. Similarly, the report, while quoting the ambassador’s interview, also stated that Pakistan knew about bin Laden’s location and helped the US reach him. The petitioners further submitted that another report of December 8, 2011, submitted by Ms Mehreen Zahra-Malik also quoted Mansoor Ijaz alleging that Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, and President Asif Ali Zardari had prior knowledge of the United States stealth mission to eliminate Osama bin Laden. The PML-N leaders also informed the apex court that another senior journalist. Mohamamd Malick, Editor of daily The News, had authored numerous informative reports on the subject and two reports dated November 18 and November 20, 2011, were co-authored along with Sehbai. The petitioners requested that the court ensure Wajid Shamsul Hassan’s appearance through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which may be directed to ensure that the ambassador, once in Pakistan, not be permitted to proceed abroad unless exonerated by this court or any commission so appointed for the said purpose by this court. They contended that Wajid, being the person who had admitted on May 2, 2011, to having prior knowledge of the May 2, 2011, Abbottabad operation was a necessary party. The PML-N leaders prayed to the apex court that their application be allowed, and the three persons, including Pakistan’s High Commissioner in UK Wajid Shamsul Hassan, Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor, The News, and Mohammad Malick, Editor, The News, Islamabad, be added as respondents in the noted petition and be summoned for assisting this court for the effective adjudication of the matter in issue. They prayed that the apex court direct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ensure the presence of Wajid Shamsul Hassan in the court. It is pertinent to mention here that a larger bench of the apex court headed by the chief justice is resuming from hearing from December 19 petitions filed by PML-N Chief Mian Nawaz Sharif. In compliance with the court’s earlier order of December 1, 2011, Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), DG ISI, Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Secretary Ministry of Interior, Defence, Cabint Division and Federation have submitted their replies in the memo case while President Asif Ali Zaradari, another respondent in the case, has not yet filed his reply. Likewise, the administration of the Supreme Court has ordered extra security measures for December 19 as the memo case is being taken up by the larger bench of the apex court. REFERENCE: PML-N wants Wajid summoned by SC in memo case BY Sohail Khan Saturday, December 17, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-82798-PML-N-wants-Wajid-summoned-by-SC-in-memo-case

The treasonous memo! By Shaheen Sehbai & Mohammad Malick November 18, 2011 - ISLAMABAD/DUBAI: From a smoking gun to a smouldering fuse, the mysterious memo earned many sobriquets even before its precise contents were known to anyone but a handful of highly secretive power players involved in its drafting and communication. The (in)famous, rather possibly game-changing, Mike Mullen memo, ironically contains six mutinous articles and is now being revealed after Admiral Mike Mullen also confirmed its existence and 'remembered' having received it at the height of the OBL crisis.
After days of huddles between the troika and other major power players of the country resulted in a resignation offer by President Zardari's closest foreign and domestic policy adviser and Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, the memo has acquired the importance of a political nuclear bomb.
The memo was sent to Mike Mullen through mutually trusted contacts by US businessman Mansoor Ijaz, who claimed doing so at the behest of an unnamed senior Pakistani diplomat, who has now been identified as none other than Mr. Husain Haqani. The memo is said to have been approved by the President of Pakistan.
Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani reportedly endorsed and seemed convinced with the evidence that Mansoor Ijaz has provided to the army and took this up in his latest one-on-one meeting with the president. Sources say without offering many options, the president was 'asked' by Gen. Kayani to immediately summon Haqqani for further enquiries.
The President, who earlier through his spokesman had simply shrugged off the whole affair while rubbishing Mansoor's claims, readily obliged and Haqqani was summoned to Islamabad. So far however, the ambassador is still staying put in Washington on the officially offered explanation that he is finishing up prescheduled diplomatic commitments.

Besides the Memo, the electronic correspondence between the diplomat and Mansoor Ijaz has also become available in full and is a graphic account of dates, time lines, words, and even emoticons, which are normally used by youthful SMS users. Part of this conversation was recently released by Mansoor Ijaz to the media in his almost 3,700 word long statement. All communications between Haqqani and Mansoor have now been transcribed from the cell phones and made available to The News.
The Memo has reached The News from more than one source, both within Pakistan and from abroad, and is nothing short of being offensively repulsive, offering an alarming insight into a power-corrupt mindset willing to compromise national interest for petty personal power gains. It is, arguably, a document crafted by soul-less conspirators who clearly have no shame and dignity, no national pride or respect.
The originator, writer, approver and the ultimate beneficiary of the Memo all look like vicious anti-state collaborators and traitors hiding under the garb of national leaders and proving themselves to be decision-makers occupying positions they never deserved and should never have been allowed to occupy in the first instance. All that has come in bits and pieces in the media so far are simply peanuts as compared to the 929 words of the Confidential Memo, which has been obtained and confirmed to be authentic by The News.
Couched as a "Briefing for Admiral Mike Mullen," each word has a deep meaning and each sentence carries an offer, a plan, an incentive to demolish national security apparatus of Pakistan, play havoc with its nuclear assets, allow American boots on Pakistani soil and help and abet the US in accusing and proving the Pakistani armed forces and intelligence agencies guilty of "complicity" in the Osama bin Laden affair, his secret stay in Pakistan and his mission.
To top it all and make such an investigation into a foolproof nutcracker, the memo also invites US authorities to hand pick the investigators panel. Aping Camp-Justice style justice, the memo also assures its recipient that the investigation process, "will result in immediate termination of active service officers". In other words, byebye to a recalcitrant Kayani, adios to a hardnosed Pasha?
The memo brazenly accuses the Pakistan Army leadership of "brinkmanship aimed at bringing down the civilian apparatus in Pakistan" and calls the time it was written in May 2011 as "a 1971 moment in Pakistan's history" when the armed forces had been defeated in East Pakistan and civilians led by ZA Bhutto had gained the upper hand over the military.

And what do the drafters of this treasonous memo have in mind for changing the security paradigm of Pakistan? In lieu of prolonging their own stay in power, the authors of the memo promised the US administration to replace the, "National security adviser and other national security officials with trusted advisers that include ex-military and civilian leaders favourably viewed by Washington". Talk of being his master's voice.
The Memo talks of creating a "new national security team" which promises to give "carte blanche" or a blank cheque to the Americans to carry out Osama-type military raids inside Pakistan and any operation on Pakistani soil. Could there be a greater violation of national sovereignty? One wonders. Clearly the authors of the memo did not give two hoots about at least two unanimous resolutions of the national parliament, which categorically forbade any violation of Pakistan's sovereignty by a third country and any action by it against Pakistani citizens inside Pakistan.
Not only this but the memo also promises that the US would be given the "green signal" to not only track down people on Pakistani soil but also to kill them if so needed. The memo stands in clear defiance of the binding resolutions adopted by the Constitutionally elected parliament.
In a criminally dangerous development, the memo presents as an equivocal fact that the top al-Qaeda leadership is based inside Pakistan when the authors promise to hand over the likes of Ayman Al Zawahiri, Mulla Omar etc. This angle alone would have qualified Pakistan to be declared a rogue terrorist state but try telling that to a duo with vaulting ambitions who appear to have no qualms of destroying the state in order to perpetuate their stay in office and continue with loot and plunder.
As an icing on the cake, the authors of the memo also promised to bring Pakistan's nuclear assets under a "more verifiable, transparent regime.. For those in the know, this translates into retooling the entire setup and providing unrestricted access to Pakistan's nuclear assets to United States, something that has long figured high on the US wish list. This offered concession also fits in neatly with the framework softly being pushed through the slower and circuitous Cooperative Threat Reduction regime (CTR) That the move to place our nuclear assets at the mercy of the US and its 'friends' has direct security consequences for Pakistan vis-‡-vis India, among other serious concerns, is clearly no priority for the authors. And understandably so because their only concern was to stay in power no matter how. Let the country pay the price of their avarice.
What political repercussions this memo will have on the power politics of Pakistan is too early to predict but what has been established is that the military establishment is not happy at all with what was going on and the Opposition will jump on the government with a relentless campaign to bring the culprits to book. Will the President stick to his guns and refuse to abandon his man in Washington? Or will he move with ruthless efficiency and speed to sever any possible incriminating link? Will the expected sacking of the envoy signal the end of the crisis or mark the beginning of the next and possibly fateful phase?
The political landscape is waiting for some more aftershocks, it appears. What is certain however is that the heat from the smouldering fuse is being felt by the keg. REFERENCE: The treasonous memo! By Shaheen Sehbai & Mohammad Malick November 18, 2011 - Updated 834 PKT http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-26760-The-treasonous-memo

Army thinks govt’s Taliban policy has failed, says Sethi Aapas Ki Baat on Friday News Desk Saturday, May 10, 2014 To a question on a treason plea filed in the Supreme Court, Sethi said the petition was filed before the then SC CJ iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry but he had rejected it. “Most people in the petition belong to Geo. Some people have managed its admission in the court which included people who oppose Geo. Some newspapers and two secret agencies are also behind it. ISI is against Geo for its severe criticism. I believe the SC will hear it to reach a conclusion whether these people are traitors or not. I hope the court will dispose of the man with the red cap after admonishing him. If this case continues, many people will reach the court with similar cases. I think the court will rubbish the case and the mover,” he observed. To another question on the rules and regulations for the media, he said the media would not accept any code of conduct. “However, the media itself should evolve a regulatory authority. I think Geo and Jang, being the biggest group, should lead from the front. If you insult others, they will pay you in the same coin. We will have to present the truth, not mix our thoughts with the reality and not make news out of our wishes,” he added.Some newspapers and two secret agencies are also behind it. ISI is against Geo for its severe criticism. I believe the SC will hear it to reach a conclusion whether these people are traitors or not. I hope the court will dispose of the man with the red cap after admonishing him. If this case continues, many people will reach the court with similar cases. I think the court will rubbish the case and the mover,” he observed. To another question on the rules and regulations for the media, he said the media would not accept any code of conduct. “However, the media itself should evolve a regulatory authority. I think Geo and Jang, being the biggest group, should lead from the front. If you insult others, they will pay you in the same coin. We will have to present the truth, not mix our thoughts with the reality and not make news out of our wishes,” he added. REFERENCE: Army thinks govt’s Taliban policy has failed, says Sethi Aapas Ki Baat on Friday News Desk Saturday, May 10, 2014 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-249293-Army-thinks-govts-Taliban-policy-has-failed-says-SethiPrincess and the Playboy 1996 BBChttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/xubf0i_princess-and-the-playboy-bbc-1996_news

Najam Sethi joins Geo/Jang Group : Friday, January 07, 2011 KARACHI: Renowned editor, political analyst and anchor Najam Sethi has joined the Geo/Jang Group as group adviser political affairs. Najam Sethi will host three weekly shows on Geo TV and write regular news analyses and commentary for Jang Group of Newspapers, including The News. Najam Sethi is the recipient of three international press freedom awards, including the Golden Pen in 2009 from the World Editors Forum representing 17,000 of the world’s leading newspapers. He was awarded the Hilal-e-Pakistan, Pakistan’s highest civil award, in 2010. Najam Sethi was educated at Government College Lahore and Clare College, Cambridge University, UK. He was declared Alumnus of the Year 2011 by Cambridge University and appointed Eric Lane Fellow of Clare College, a first for a Pakistani. Newsweek International described him in 1999 as a “Crusading Editor” for exposing and fighting against corruption in high office. He was imprisoned in 1975 by the regime of ZA Bhutto, by the regime of General Ziaul Haq in 1984, and by the government of Nawaz Sharif in 1999 for opposing their policies. His forthcoming book series to be published in 2011 is titled: ìFrom Plunderland to Blunderland: Pakistan under Benazir, Nawaz, Musharraf and Zardari, 1988-2010î. Najam Sethi writes op-ed columns for various international newspapers, including Wall Street Journal, is a frequent speaker at international conferences and is the chairman of the Pakistan Publishers and Booksellers. Najam Sethi is also an international Trustee of the Asia Society, New York, and Leaders Project, Washington DC. The Geo/Jang Group said it was delighted to have such an eminent and popular media personality on its platform. “He will add depth, balance, objectivity and neutrality to the wide spectrum of views available on our platform,” said a spokesman for Geo TV. REFERENCE: Najam Sethi joins Geo/Jang Group Friday, January 07, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=3168&Cat=13&dt=1/7/2011

Najam Sethi is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma never ceases to amaze. He is liberal anti-establishment, pro-establishment and pro-PPP, all at the same time. Kinda similar game is played by Altaf Hussain. - Najam's inclusion in Laghar Cabinet in 1996 (as pronounced by Zardari) after Tummandar dismissed his own (PPP second government) - What we have here that Alleged Awami Government is awarding Tamghas (Medals) to the likes of Najam Sethi - In good book of Zardari or not but he is absolutely in the good books of State Department and Rawalpindi.

Dawn Prime Ministers Adviser on Political Affairs and Accountability, Najam Sethi DAWN 26 December 1996 Cabinet split over recovery from defaulters - The officials have said that Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari took pains to avoid creating a documentary record of their role in hundreds of deals. How this was done was explained by Najam Sethi, a former Bhutto loyalist who became the editor of Pakistan's most popular political weekly, Friday Times, then was drafted to help oversee a corruption inquiry undertaken by the caretaker Government that ruled for three months after Ms. Bhutto's dismissal in 1996. Mr. Sethi said Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari adopted a system under which they assigned favors by writing orders on yellow Post-It notes and attaching them to official files. After the deals were completed, Mr. Sethi said, the notes were removed, destroying all trace of involvement. REFERENCE: HOUSE OF GRAFT: Tracing the Bhutto Millions -- A special report.; Bhutto Clan Leaves Trail of Corruption By JOHN F. BURNS Published: January 09, 1998 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1996/26Dc96.html#cabi and http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/09/world/house-graft-tracing-bhutto-millions-special-report-bhutto-clan-leaves-trail.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

FEB 22, 1999: The Pen Is Mightier... Pakistan's press is certainly freer than before though it labours under the shadow of the government. BY NAJAM SETHI NAWAZ Sharif has never liked the press. He once said newspapers only cause trouble. When he was prime minister the last time (1990-93), he had a short fuse and gave the press a hard time. Numerous cases of vandalism by ruling party thugs against newspapers and journalists were reported across the country. Takbeer magazine's offices in Karachi were burnt down. A sedition case was lodged against the editor of The News in Islamabad for publishing a poem in the letters column which Sharif didn't like. And so on. I had a particularly nasty experience in 1992-93 because, apart from the investigative stories of corruption in government, Sharif didn't warm to a weekly satirical column about him in my paper. Armed thugs were sent to rough me up but I escaped their clutches. I was advised my safety couldn't be guaranteed if some ruling party loyalists decided to bomb my office. Income tax notices flew thick and fast. Anonymous phone-callers abused my wife and threatened rape and kidnapping. My paper survived only because Sharif was booted out of power a couple of months later. Pakistani politicians like Sharif who are originally products of martial law have a special love-hate relationship with the press. They adore it when in opposition and abhor it when in power. Their problem is that they cannot come to terms with a Pakistani press which has come to savour and guard its independence after forty years of censorship under various authoritarian regimes. Pakistan's press is certainly freer today than ever before. But it continues to labour under the shadow of the government. One, the government controls the bread and butter of newspapers newsprint imports are banned except for the press but the government retains a tight grip over newsprint quota. Two, as the government is one of the biggest sources of advertising, the press can't afford to shrug off its main source of revenue. Three, the government can use its vast coercive apparatus to browbeat the press or muzzle it if it remains unrepentant. In the final analysis, therefore, the press in Pakistan is free only to the extent that the government in power respects the rules of democracy or the judiciary, as the custodian of fundamental rights in the last resort, is strong enough to resist encroachments on democracy. If the government is authoritarian and the judiciary weak or divided, the press is a prime target for repression. Some of us have been shrieking murder since Sharif assaulted, divided and weakened the judiciary in 1997. With the judiciary out of the way, we reasoned, it was only a matter of time before the press would come under Sharif's heel. The worst has now come to pass. The Jang group of newspapers has become the focus of Sharif's unmitigated wrath. By lashing out at the largest media group, Sharif is sending a stern warning to the small fry. The siege of the Jang group is unprecedentedly vicious. Its bank accounts have been frozen, newsprint godowns sealed, hawkers harassed, journalists threatened, stiff income tax notices served and sedition cases lodged against three editors. All that remains is for the group's newspapers to cease publication, its owners to be arrested and its journalists packed off. The confrontation began like this. A column by Irshad Haqqani, Lahore Jang editor, kicked up a veritable storm in Islamabad in July 1998. Haqqani wrote advisedly about the need to revamp the government's ad-hoc decision-making system and suggested the army might have a small but positive role to play in it within the parameters of the democratic system. Islamabad reacted angrily by freezing ads to the Jang group. Then came the proverbial straw which broke the government's back. In October, army chief Gen. Jehangir Karamat suggested a National Security Council to tackle the country's mounting difficulties. The Jang group ordered a telephonic survey of public opinion: an overwhelming majority were all for the proposal. Two days later, Karamat was sacked. On the third day, Sharif stood before the national assembly and blasted those who wanted to derail democracy. And ordered senator Saif-ur Rahman, a loyalist who runs the controversial Accountability Bureau, to teach them a lesson. Jang was number one on the good senator's hitlist. We know the rest, thanks to the charming indiscretions of the senator, who was taped by the owner-editor of the Jang group, Mir Shakilur Rehman, when he brandished the threats. Among other demands, the government wants the Jang group to fire 16 top editors and reporters. Where does the press, and in particular the Jang group, go from here? Forward. There is no choice. Here was an Urdu newspaper whose editorial comment pages were often conspicuously tilted, as a matter of policy, in favour of the government. Indeed, a number of highly paid hacks blindly loyal to Sharif were put on its payrolls expressly to keep Islamabad happy. Yet it fell foul of an autocratic regime when it tried to steer a marginally less devoted path. Imagine what might happen to a more outspoken paper (like mine) if the Jang group were to bite the dust. Saif-ur Rahman claims he is only going after tax dodgers, not impinging on press freedom. This is a hollow, self-righteous claim. The biggest tax dodger and loan defaulter is the senator's boss, followed by scores of fellow compatriots in the national assembly, including industrial robber-barons and feudal landlords who have scooted away with Rs 200 billion in public money, without as much as a scratch on their backs. The press is in for a rough time. It would do well to remember a fact of life. Governments are fated to come and go but the press is destined to go on forever. REFERENCE: The Pen Is Mightier... Pakistan's press is certainly freer than before though it labours under the shadow of the government. BY NAJAM SETHI http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?207042

Sunday, May 11, 2014

No Media Company in the world invite Former Intelligence Agencies Chiefs in their talk shows so frequently rather regularly like Pakistani Media and the most funny part is that overwhelming majority of these "Formers" almost comment on every moving thing and most of the time they are so out of touch with reality that viewers instead of gaining something, feel like to throw up. Most of these Former "Gentlemen" forget one thing that "Cold War" is over and their narratives are no more valid in a Post 911 Pakistan but they won't budge and one of the biggest reason are those TV Anchors and Journalists who invite such Bulls in a China Shop and ask them questions which are not relevant to their filed e.g. Ideology of Pakistan, Text Books, History, Culture, Music and last but not the least the "Dynamics of Politics" but these gentleman do comment without even bothering that people have another sources to confirm and authenticate for rubbishing their Cock and Bull claptrap. How many of us in Pakistan know about the working and function of Mossad, CIA, Mossad, SAS or countless others but thanks to our Media and Narcissist "Formers" , we have made our Services and their Function a laughing stock all over the globe and more funnier are the pages on Facebook loaded with Patritotism almost bordering Fascism in their support. Secret means Secret and Intelligence Agencies and their function are secret and they should remain secret but thanks to our "Narcissist Formers" , every damn country which we cannot even locate on the map talks about Pakistan's Security Services.

2012: IN A recent televised interview, a former brigadier of the Pakistan Military Intelligence claimed that Kamran Khan, one of the prominent new anchors in the country, has been on the agency’s payroll since 1991. A few months earlier, journalists Absar Alam and Hamid Mir approached the Supreme Court and complained about alleged corruption in the media. Such stories do raise questions about the efficacy of modern media in empowering their respective societies. It is worth asking if the new media, with its enhanced tools and technology, ensures freer access to information and hence qualitative enhancement of political space in a society? Reference: Peeping Inside A Free Media The Pakistan media industry is touted to be vibrant and fiercely independent. But such a reputation has been built on a shaky foundation by AYESHA SIDDIQA November 5, 2012, Issue 45 Volume 9 http://www.tehelka.com/peeping-inside-a-free-media/

Reuters says : Hiring stringers Utmost care must be taken in hiring stringers that we use reputable journalists who are able and willing to adhere to our rigorous standards of accuracy, objectivity, sourcing and freedom from bias. No individual correspondent should hire a stringer without the explicit approval of the bureau chief or editor in charge. We must exercise the utmost caution in hiring ad-hoc stringers for individual stories. Preference in hiring stringers should be given to professional journalists whose skills meet our standards. Bureaus should not hire non-journalists as stringers without the explicit approval of the regional managing editor and the relevant specialist editor. Under no circumstances should we hire officials of a government or local authority, members of the armed forces or police and intelligence services or public relations employees to work as stringers. Stringers must be briefed on our standards of accuracy, objectivity, sourcing and freedom from bias. Regular stringers should be asked to read an abridged version of our Code of Conduct and editorial guidelines. Bureau chiefs should have these documents. Stringers should be asked to acknowledge that they have read the contents and agree to abide by them. All stringers must be told at the hiring stage that Reuters reserves the right to rewrite the material they provide to ensure that it meets our standards and style and to insert material from other reporters as well as background and context to ensure that their reports are suitable for a global readership. Stringers must be told that Reuters expects to use their byline and be given an opportunity to discuss circumstances when this might not be appropriate. Training can be offered to stringers who contribute regularly. Such training is at the discretion of the bureau chief and the regional managing editor. Remuneration for stringers will depend on local and individual circumstances. There will be cases of sensitivity where it could be dangerous for a stringer's identity to be revealed because of possible pressure from a government or another employer. In such cases the identity of a stringer should not be divulged to the authorities, members of the public or any third party outside Reuters without explicit approval from a senior editor, who will escalate as appropriate. It should be normal practice, however, for stringers to identify themselves as working on behalf of Reuters. They should not misrepresent themselves. REFERENCE: Reuters Handbook of Journalism http://www.trust.org/contentAsset/raw-data/652966ab-c90b-4252-b4a5-db8ed1d438ce/file

Reuters says : Stories based on a single, anonymous source should be the exception and require approval by an immediate supervisor - a bureau chief, head of reporting unit in a large centre, or editor in charge. The supervisor must satisfy himself or herself that the source is authoritative. Supervisors may pre-delegate approval to experienced senior correspondents working with authoritative sources to ensure we remain competitive on timings. Factors to be taken into account include the source's track record and the reporter's track record. The supervisor may decide to hold the story for further checks if the sourcing is unsatisfactory. For a single source story, the informant must be an actual policymaker or participant involved in the action or negotiation with first-hand knowledge, or an official representative or spokesperson speaking on background. Such information should be subject to particular scrutiny to ensure we are not being manipulated. The supervisor's approval should be noted on the outgoing copy (in the "edited by" sign-off) so that editing desks and editors in charge have confidence that a senior journalist in a position of authority has authorised the story. If desks still have doubts, they should contact the supervisor concerned. REFERENCE: Reuters Handbook of Journalism http://www.trust.org/contentAsset/raw-data/652966ab-c90b-4252-b4a5-db8ed1d438ce/file

Although Mr Mazhar Abbas is a very senior journalist and contributed a lot for the Press Freedom in Pakistan but before and after the Tragic Incident of Hamid Mir, he in several TV Shows often found saying that the Ministry of Information and Intelligence Agencies "Corrupt" the newspaper and also the journalists to use them for their selfish motives. One wonders how would he explain the 2 footages above and several blatant rather brazen act of commission and omission by the Media and certian Journalists themseleves because neither the Media Houses nor some of the journalists (not all) are some school going children that then can be lured by some Lollipop without their will. If the Intelligence Agencies and the State are to blamed for the rot then it must be shared by certain big names in the media as well

Here’s my two cents worth. In the absence of rules of law, engagement and a code of ethics for all national institutions, what the present crisis represents is a grab for power in the vacuum that perceptibly exists. Had the ISI unilaterally embraced the recommendations of the Air Marshal Zulfikar Ali Khan Commission report it would have spared itself a lot of criticism it faces today. I have no doubt in my mind and can come up with many examples of where it has used the third degree against dissenters, journalists being no exception. It’s tasked with protecting national security. The jury is still out on how great a job it has done but it has grown unchallenged to assume the status of the sole arbiter of patriotism, even trying its hand at ‘nation-building’. It has significant say in Balochistan where its alleged excesses and those of its surrogate civilian religious bands are not a figment of the imagination. The agency has had no qualms about questioning the capability, integrity and even the patriotism of civilian elected leaders, allegedly using sympathisers in the same media which has earned its wrath today. But any criticism directed at it is blamed on foreign masters, handlers, material gain and every unsavoury motivation under the sun. All intelligence agencies in the world need to work in the shadows. ISI is no different. But even the threat of terrorism is no justification for acting like a law unto itself. Jang group has always been one of the most influential media houses here. The setting up of Geo was the work of an entrepreneurial genius. It became the biggest not necessarily because it was the best but it had the first mover’s advantage. Jang newspaper’s vast newsgathering network and the immediacy of 24x7news allowed it to build a mythical status. Along with this status, revenues came flooding in. The group was a pioneer in the ‘talk show’ genre and experimented successfully in ‘iman’ to ‘inam’ shows ie programming from peddling faith to sponsored prizes. Of course with this success came visions of grandeur; a desire not only to report and comment from an observer’s perch as the media should but to enter the fray a la Murdoch. In its ethos, the group also promotes conservatism a bit like the agency it is at loggerheads with today but, not unlike the agency, wouldn’t mind championing progressive causes for a profit. But its pre-eminence in the number of eyeballs also brought with it a huge amount of arrogance. So much so that it pronounced judgement on who was fit to rule Pakistan and who wasn’t, not even shying away from issuing certificates of patriotism or otherwise. The intense rivalries, in the quest for ratings and revenues, have meant a downward spiral where some sections of the electronic media, one fears, may disappear down the gutter. In the more recent context if Geo has made me shake my head in anger and disbelief at the lack of editorial control leading to on-air anarchy, some of the other channels’ complete abandonment of their journalistic role has made me reach for the vomit bag. REFERENCE: Needless distraction BY Abbas Nasir Updated Apr 26, 2014 http://www.dawn.com/news/1102328/needless-distraction

Pakistani Media and some Senior Journalists often raise hue and cry over lack of control of civilians over Intelligence Agencies in Pakistan and whenever Civilians try to settle this issue then the same media viciously attack the civilians and start the name calling campaign to the extent of declaring Civilian Government , Traitors and what not, here nuggets from the The News International (Jang Group of Newspapers) in 2008 launched a vicious tirade .

Editorial ISI fiasco Monday, July 28, 2008 As the key decision-makers jetted their way towards the US, they left the country in a state of confusion by first issuing an ill planned, sort of arbitrary, notification to place the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) under the interior ministry and then hastily clarifying its intent in a press release issued very late in the night. The confusion did not end just there, and now it appears that the initial decision to place the intelligence agency under the control of the interior ministry has been reversed. The fact that a second press release had to be issued a few hours after the initial story that the ISI had been placed under the interior ministry, (the second one) saying that the intelligence agency was already under civilian control because its chief reported to the prime minister may have to do with negative feedback but also suggests some level of confusion and an apparently ham-handed attempt to resort to some type of damage control. As for the government’s clarification and eventual reversal, it needs to be pointed out that under the old arrangement, where the agency would report to the prime minister through the defence or cabinet division, the wide perception among most people was that it tended to be an institution unto itself and very much under the control of the army chief, who may or may not have had a good working relationship with the executive. To that extent, the transfer to the interior division would have been beneficial simply because the person who heads this ministry is supposed to be any government’s point-man, so to speak, as far as law and order is concerned. The sudden, literally overnight, reversal of the decision also highlights the fact that certain institutions in the country seem to most jealously guard their control over the state’s intelligence apparatus. PPP chief Asif Ali Zardari said after the decision was made public that the move will improve the image of the military, since in the past it had received much flak for being the sponsor of devious doings and of pursuing a foreign policy independent of the elected government. However, there is one valid criticism of the decision and this is that placing the agency under the control of the interior ministry may make it even more vulnerable to being misused to suit a government’s political and ulterior ends. Having said that, as pointed out already it is imperative that all the state’s intelligence-gathering institutions be controlled by civilians eventually and be answerable to parliament. This is because the ISI and the IB have often been accused of in fact working to undermine elected governments. To this effect, the remarks of both the interior and defence ministries made to the Supreme Court in 2006 (while a habeas corpus hearing into some citizens who had disappeared was being conducted) that neither exerted any command over the ISI are instructive. The key is for the ISI and also the IB to be made answerable to parliament, and that their roles be restricted to within the ambit of the Constitution and focused on gathering information and intelligence on those involved in terrorism — and not to harass on innocent citizens or a government’s political opponents. The misuse of agencies to spy on politicians must end but it should also not be handed over to unelected politicians to use it for their own political ends. The ISI in particular is seen by many as a state within the state, pursuing its own agenda. This perception needs to be corrected. While there are questions over whether the Interior Ministry control can cut it down to size, the effort should be to keep the country’s most notorious agency on a tight leash, under existing civilian control. How it works out in practice will depend on the competence and collective wisdom of our ruling political class. REFERENCE: Editorial ISI fiasco Monday, July 28, 2008 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=126617&Cat=8&dt=7%2F28%2F2008

It was Zardari’s decision to control ISI by Tariq Butt Tuesday, July 29, 2008 ISLAMABAD: The three influential government leaders — Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, PPP Co-chairman Asif Zardari and Adviser to the PM on Interior Rehman Malik — took the decision to place the premier spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, under the interior ministry, reliable sources said.
“The entire cabinet was unaware of the major decision,” a senior political source close to the cabinet told The News. He rather said it was Zardari, who decided to place the ISI under complete civilian control, “and Gilani and Malik just tried its implementation, having the official capacities.”
Since the cabinet was not in the loop, the question of any discussion on the issue even among a select group of ministers did not arise, the source said. The PPP leaders and ministers admit that the lack of consultations in which all the pros and cons of the decision would have been reviewed led to the colossal loss of face and faux pas.
“We will take a long time to overcome the myriad of misunderstandings and misgivings that have crept up between the powerful players,” one of them said. Other sources say that the abortive attempt to put the ISI under the interior ministry, that created a storm in Rawalpindi, was meant to actually give its control to Zardari “as Rehman Malik is his most trusted person in the government.”
Not only the senior PPP leaders and the entire cabinet were kept in the dark, no partner of the ruling coalition was taken on board in this decision. The PML-N has a sullen face and has no contact with the PPP for quite some time due to the stalemate over the issue of the restoration of the deposed judges. The Awami National Party and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam were also not consulted in this connection.
While the PPP’s recent attempt to take control of the spy agency has boomeranged, its first bid made under the then prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 1989 was carried through to the extent that she was successful to appoint a retired officer, once close to her father, Lt-Gen Shamsur Rehman Kallue as the ISI chief.
Successive elected rulers of Pakistan have been concertedly struggling to take charge of the elite agency. Such bids always created bad blood between the civilian governments and the military establishment.
The latest attempt reflected the mindset and approach of the civilian rulers to have the ISI on their side on the premise that they have been mandated to make and implement key domestic and foreign policies of the state and that the agency can do wonders in the realisation of their political agenda. Benazir Bhutto, just three months after assuming the office of the prime minister, had shown the door to the then ISI chief Lt-Gen Hameed Gul and appointed the first-ever retired military officer Gen Kallue in his place. In his first tenure, Nawaz Sharif appointed Islamist Lt-Gen Khawaja Javed Nasir as the ISI chief. He, however, was unable to save or prolong the life of Nawaz government. Instead, the appointment had estranged the Army. In his second tenure, Nawaz nominated Lt-Gen Ziauddin Butt as the director-general of the spy agency. He also failed to delay or prevent his ouster by Pervez Musharraf. The present ISI chief Lt-Gen Nadeem Taj was appointed to this position by President Musharraf. He had earlier served as the military secretary to the president for years. REFERENCE: It was Zardari’s decision to control ISI by Tariq Butt
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=126894&Cat=2&dt=7%2F31%2F2008

Looking for the head that will roll in ISI blunder BY Tariq Butt Thursday, July 31, 2008 ISLAMABAD: Who – amongst the secretaries of cabinet, interior, defence and principal secretary to the prime minister – will be made a scapegoat for the blunder of shifting the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) under the interior ministry's control if Adviser Rehman Malik's declaration to roll some heads is translated into action?
Despite repeated efforts, the cabinet, interior and defence secretaries were not available to comment on whether a formal summary, as required to run the business of the state, was moved and routed through different mandatory channels to implement the political decision.
“Apart from the involvement of the ministries of interior, defence and cabinet, the Joint Services Headquarters (JSH) was also required to be consulted over the move to transfer the ISI's control to the interior ministry," an official told The News.
He said that the views of the defence ministry and the JSH would have been known had they been forwarded a proper summary. In this specific case, he said, the proposal was to be prepared by the interior ministry under the directions of the prime minister or the adviser according to the rules of business.
It was required to be sent to the defence ministry from where it was supposed to go to the JSH. Then, it was to land in the Cabinet Division for the approval of the federal cabinet or the prime minister.
The official said that bypassing this route, the prime minister had the authority to order the Cabinet Division to prepare a case for his approval if there was an urgency to implement a decision. He may himself approve it or place it before the cabinet for its sanction.
The prime minister often conveys his orders to different ministries through his principal secretary, but at times he himself phones the secretaries and calls them to his office to do certain official things.
What was haphazardly followed in the case was that the Cabinet Division notified the change of control of the ISI in consultation with or at the behest of the interior ministry, meaning Rehman Malik or Syed Kamal Shah, throwing aside the other necessary channels. The defence paraphernalia was not taken on board.
Defence Secretary Kamran Rasool is currently abroad and will be back in Pakistan after August 1. The officiating defence secretary, Maj-Gen Mir Haider Ali Khan, did not call back. The official said had the defence ministry or the JSH been consulted by the interior ministry and the Cabinet Division in writing, the move to transfer the ISI's control would have been killed in infancy because they were going to oppose it and inform the relevant military authorities about it.
He said if Rehman Malik was to find out the scapegoats and roll their heads, the easy prey could be either the interior secretary, cabinet secretaries or the principal secretary, or all of them who were actually involved in preparing the order that had to be withdrawn within a few hours of its issuance.
Informed circles say that all these secretaries acted only after they were directed by their political bosses to do so. The actual order came from PPP Co-chairman Asif Zardari.
In the beginning on the day of the mess-up, Zardari had stated that moving the ISI under the Interior Ministry’s control was to save the military from a bad name. But a few hours later, he said the decision had been reversed to avoid confrontation between the institutions of state.
These quarters say that it was a political, not bureaucratic, decision taken at the highest level that boomeranged. Therefore, they add, a scapegoat may be found from the political lot. But, a senior official said, it was a fact that Interior Secretary Syed Kamal Shah was very happy when the notification was issued for the reason that ISI would now come under his direct control and report to him. REFERENCE: Looking for the head that will roll in ISI blunder BY Tariq Butt Thursday, July 31, 2008 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=127297&Cat=2&dt=7%2F31%2F2008

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Reuters Handbook of Journalism says: Take no side, tell all sides As Reuters journalists, we never identify with any side in an issue, a conflict or a dispute. Our text and visual stories need to reflect all sides, not just one. This leads to better journalism because it requires us to stop at each stage of newsgathering and ask ourselves "What do I know?" and "What do I need to know?" In reporting a takeover bid, for example, it should be obvious that the target company must be given an opportunity to state their position. Similarly in a political dispute or military conflict, there are always at least two sides to consider and we risk being perceived as biased if we fail to give adequate space to the various parties. This objectivity does not always come down to giving equal space to all sides. The perpetrator of an atrocity or the leader of a fringe political group arguably warrants less space than the victims or mainstream political parties. We must, however, always strive to be scrupulously fair and balanced. Allegations should not be portrayed as fact; charges should not be conveyed as a sign of guilt. We have a duty of fairness to give the subjects of such stories the opportunity to put their side. We must also be on guard against bias in our choice of words. Words like "claimed" or "according to" can suggest we doubt what is being said. Words like "fears" or "hopes" might suggest we are taking sides. Verbs like rebut or refute (which means to disprove) or like fail (as in failed to comment) can imply an editorial judgment and are best avoided. Thinking about language can only improve our writing and our journalism. REFERENCE: Reuters Handbook of Journalism http://www.trust.org/contentAsset/raw-data/652966ab-c90b-4252-b4a5-db8ed1d438ce/file

Army thinks govt’s Taliban policy has failed, says Sethi Aapas Ki Baat on Friday News Desk Saturday, May 10, 2014 To a question on a treason plea filed in the Supreme Court, Sethi said the petition was filed before the then SC CJ iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry but he had rejected it. “Most people in the petition belong to Geo. Some people have managed its admission in the court which included people who oppose Geo. Some newspapers and two secret agencies are also behind it. ISI is against Geo for its severe criticism. I believe the SC will hear it to reach a conclusion whether these people are traitors or not. I hope the court will dispose of the man with the red cap after admonishing him. If this case continues, many people will reach the court with similar cases. I think the court will rubbish the case and the mover,” he observed. To another question on the rules and regulations for the media, he said the media would not accept any code of conduct. “However, the media itself should evolve a regulatory authority. I think Geo and Jang, being the biggest group, should lead from the front. If you insult others, they will pay you in the same coin. We will have to present the truth, not mix our thoughts with the reality and not make news out of our wishes,” he added.Some newspapers and two secret agencies are also behind it. ISI is against Geo for its severe criticism. I believe the SC will hear it to reach a conclusion whether these people are traitors or not. I hope the court will dispose of the man with the red cap after admonishing him. If this case continues, many people will reach the court with similar cases. I think the court will rubbish the case and the mover,” he observed. To another question on the rules and regulations for the media, he said the media would not accept any code of conduct. “However, the media itself should evolve a regulatory authority. I think Geo and Jang, being the biggest group, should lead from the front. If you insult others, they will pay you in the same coin. We will have to present the truth, not mix our thoughts with the reality and not make news out of our wishes,” he added. REFERENCE: Army thinks govt’s Taliban policy has failed, says Sethi Aapas Ki Baat on Friday News Desk Saturday, May 10, 2014 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-249293-Army-thinks-govts-Taliban-policy-has-failed-says-Sethi Princess and the Playboy BBC 1996 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xubf0i_princess-and-the-playboy-bbc-1996_news

In a TV Show of GEO TV "Aaj Kamran Khan Kay Sath dated 18 Nov 2011", and also on Bolta Pakistan of AAJ TV dated 16 Nov 2011, the resident editor of The News International, Mr. Mohammad Malick opined that raising objection on Mansoor Ijaz' credibility is of no use! Very well as Mr. Malick suggest we should apply Mansoor Ijaz "Rant" as a cardinal truth and Mr. Mohammad Malick should plead case against Pakistan in the world community particularly in UN by quoting from Mr. Mansoor Ijaz "Excellent Pieces" on Pakistan. Some members of the Pakistani establishment and especially those agencies (nowadays this role has been taken over by the Jang Group of Newspapers), which have assumed the role of determining what is ‘national interest of Pakistan’, and who is loyal, and who is anti Pakistan, have perhaps done more damage to Pakistan than known enemies of Pakistan. It is unfortunate that every blunder, be it at national level or in foreign affairs, is made in the name of ‘national interest of Pakistan’. People of Pakistan are perplexed as they fail to understand what is ’national interest of Pakistan. People are further bewildered when some of these leaders, perceived and declared as ‘anti Pakistan’ or ‘security risk’ are sworn in to hold some kind of office in Pakistan. There are many examples where people declared as an ‘Indian agent’ or ‘traitor’ had taken high public office; even those who had no Pakistani nationality or rescinded it, had an opportunity to become Prime Minister of Pakistan. Once these people have decided that something is in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’, they will pursue that agenda without having any system of check and balance and appraisal. If any one dares to criticize what they do in the name of ‘national interest of Pakistan’, he/she is declared as ‘anti Pakistan’. Similarly if a Pakistani person criticizes Pakistan government, or holds demonstration against the government policy, he is declared as ‘anti Pakistan’. Now closely read (which I would quote from Jang Group's The News) what the Nincompoops (even the Senior Diplomatic Correspondents and Group Editors didn't have slightest idea as to what they were talking about what to talk of Ansar Abbasi) in the Jang Group of Newspapers had been filing in their Rag called The News International. Pakistan is one of those unfortunate countries where the Sanctimonious Intellectuals discuss the blame on speculations and assumptions even if it is at the cost of the integrity and sovereignty of the country. Differing with PPP or any other government is one thing and putting country's fate at the stake for settling some political score is quite another and that is the usual story with the Jang Group of newspaper and their Journalists/TV Anchors particularly Shaheen Sehbai, Kamran Khan, Mohammad Malick and Ansar Abbasi despite knowing an established fact (with reference, history and footage) that Mansoor Ijaz and his Neocon Lobby had destroyed Iraq by raising False Alarm of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Mansoor Ijaz tried exactly did the same again and Jang Group of Newspapers was part and parcel in this ugly game. We must keep one thing in mind that Mohammad Malick (Resident Editor, The News International) also has several blot on his character e.g. Muhammad Malick (List of journalists given plots in Islamabad Published: November 1, 2010 http://tribune.com.pk/story/70940/list-of-journalists-given-plots-in-islamabad/ Journalist Corruption Scandal – Mohammad Malick JUNE 3, 2009 http://pkpolitics.com/2009/06/03/journalist-corruption-scandal-mohammad-malick/. Jang Group often invoke Quran and Sunnah and Fatwa to serve selfish motives therefore they must know about the “Burden of Proof” - “The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff and the taking of oath is upon the defendant.” (Al-Bayhaqi)” - Guilty by Suspicion is against the Spirit of Islamic Law because when you raise finger then it’s the responsibility of those who allege to produce witness. Benefit of doubt is always given to those who is under trial. "QUOTE" - Updated Nov 18, 2011 Ansar Abbasi, a newspaper editor often said to be a proxy for the military establishment, said if Haqqani is involved in the affair, he should be tried for treason. ‘Memogate’ scandal reveals civil-military splits "UNQUOTE http://www.dawn.com/news/674146/memogate-scandal-reveals-civil-military-splits

The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, and the oath is upon the one who is accused (Tirmidhi) - Therefore the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone, unless they perpetrate a crime which Shari’ah considers to be a crime, and the perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge in a judiciary court, because the evidence could not be admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a judiciary court.

ZURICH: Mansoor Ijaz, the US business tycoon who has become the centre of a huge controversy over the reported memorandum sent through him by President Zardari to Admiral Mike Mullen, on Sunday night issued a rejoinder from Zurich, responding to the statements issued by presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar, the Foreign Office and Ambassador Husain Haqqani on the issue.
His statement came hours after PTI leader Imran Khan told the huge Lahore rally that Ambassador Haqqani had sent the memo to Admiral Mike Mullen requesting the US army to help against Pakistan Army. After Imran Khan’s allegations in his speech, Ambassador Haqqani had challenged the PTI leader on Sunday night to produce any evidence, if he had one, in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. REFERENCE: A dangerous path for Pakistan, says Mansoor Ijaz News Desk Monday, October 31, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-9981-A-dangerous-path-for-Pakistan-says-Mansoor-Ijaz

The PML-N Friday, through a Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA), requested the Supreme Court that Pakistan’s High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hassan; Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor, The News, and Muhammad Malick, Editor, The News, Islamabad, also be made respondents in the memo case being taken up for hearing from December 19. ISLAMABAD: The PML-N Friday, through a Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA), requested the Supreme Court that Pakistan’s High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hassan; Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor, The News, and Muhammad Malick, Editor, The News, Islamabad, also be made respondents in the memo case being taken up for hearing from December 19.
In their petition, PML-N leader Ishaq Dar and Khwaja Asif contended that an impression was created by the civil authorities that Pakistan knew nothing about the Abbottabad operation in advance.
However, they stated that Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor of The News, in his story on December 8, 2011, while quoting interviews of Pakistan’s High Commissioner in UK, Wajid Shamsul Hassan, with CNN, BBC and NDTV revealed that Pakistan had known about the May 2 raid at least 8 to 10 days in advance.
The report further revealed that Pakistan knew the operation was going to happen and assisted in terms of authorisation of the helicopter flights in our space. Similarly, the report, while quoting the ambassador’s interview, also stated that Pakistan knew about bin Laden’s location and helped the US reach him.
The petitioners further submitted that another report of December 8, 2011, submitted by Ms Mehreen Zahra-Malik also quoted Mansoor Ijaz alleging that Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, and President Asif Ali Zardari had prior knowledge of the United States stealth mission to eliminate Osama bin Laden.
The PML-N leaders also informed the apex court that another senior journalist. Mohamamd Malick, Editor of daily The News, had authored numerous informative reports on the subject and two reports dated November 18 and November 20, 2011, were co-authored along with Sehbai.
The petitioners requested that the court ensure Wajid Shamsul Hassan’s appearance through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which may be directed to ensure that the ambassador, once in Pakistan, not be permitted to proceed abroad unless exonerated by this court or any commission so appointed for the said purpose by this court. They contended that Wajid, being the person who had admitted on May 2, 2011, to having prior knowledge of the May 2, 2011, Abbottabad operation was a necessary party.
The PML-N leaders prayed to the apex court that their application be allowed, and the three persons, including Pakistan’s High Commissioner in UK Wajid Shamsul Hassan, Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor, The News, and Mohammad Malick, Editor, The News, Islamabad, be added as respondents in the noted petition and be summoned for assisting this court for the effective adjudication of the matter in issue.
They prayed that the apex court direct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ensure the presence of Wajid Shamsul Hassan in the court. It is pertinent to mention here that a larger bench of the apex court headed by the chief justice is resuming from hearing from December 19 petitions filed by PML-N Chief Mian Nawaz Sharif.
In compliance with the court’s earlier order of December 1, 2011, Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), DG ISI, Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Secretary Ministry of Interior, Defence, Cabint Division and Federation have submitted their replies in the memo case while President Asif Ali Zaradari, another respondent in the case, has not yet filed his reply. Likewise, the administration of the Supreme Court has ordered extra security measures for December 19 as the memo case is being taken up by the larger bench of the apex court. REFERENCE: PML-N wants Wajid summoned by SC in memo case BY Sohail Khan Saturday, December 17, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-82798-PML-N-wants-Wajid-summoned-by-SC-in-memo-case

The Author was Resident Editor of The News and now he is MD Pakistan Television Corporation The memo Epicentre Between the lines - II BY Mohammad Malick Wednesday, October 26, 2011 Big storms sometimes begin deceptively small and then in no time become monsters, ruthlessly devouring the unprepared, the unsuspecting. Are Mansoor Ijaz’s revelations in the Financial Times something similar? He claims to have delivered an SOS message from President Zardari to President Obama at the behest of a top diplomat and says that he was specifically asked to approach Admiral Mike Mullen because Mullen could influence both Obama and Gen Kayani. “The memo was delivered to Admiral Mullen at 14.00 hrs on May 10”, wrote Mansoor, saying the very next day in Washington, Mullen had a meeting with “Pakistani national security officials” who had no clue at the time that their meeting had been spawned by a secret presidential memo. Rawalpindi too learnt of the memo months later when Mansoor went cautiously public in the FT.
For its part, political Islamabad kept pretending all these months as if it had done nothing out of the ordinary. Even the explosive FT disclosure was dismissed as a “blatant lie by a self-promoting individual”, as put by an important federal minister. Rawalpindi also pretended as if it had not noticed anything unusual but on the quiet, the system went into overdrive to ferret out facts. Washington was mum, as nobody had asked it for an explanation. And just when things misleadingly appeared to be settling into an inconsequential political groove, Hillary Clinton came calling.
And a lot has happened since my column last week. When asked bluntly about the memo, Secretary Clinton manoeuvred evasively by neither denying nor confirming the memo. And we all know what that really means in case of a critical question at such a diplomatic level. Within the last week the memo issue is also no longer confined to two messengers. Heavyweights have entered the fray and the buzz is that in a lovely European capital, relevant people huddled for hours in meetings, which may well irreversibly influence the political landscape back home. There seem to be no more doubts about the veracity of the memo. All suspicions and apprehensions seem to have been removed. The FT people would be laughing.
With the basics settled, the focus would shift to the memo’s contents. If the details trickling out are to be believed, we apparently do not have a gun but a smoking bazooka on our hands. The contents are so toxic that they could well float into the realm of treason. The memo supposedly has it all, including the promised change of security establishment (read: sacking of Kayani & Co). Even speculations about allowing nuclear security retooling, or American boots on the ground, are tantamount to political blasphemy, so imagine the devastating consequences when such offers are found written in black and white. “It’s an impossibly desperate dream menu rather than a memo,” says someone credible in Islamabad. Everything appears to be real, everything is now on the record. The problem, and the beauty of today’s digital existence, is that every little scrap of data gets preserved with the simple click of a key, instantly transforming seemingly inconsequential exchanges into key-evidence. One click and BlackBerries can turn into poison berries.
What happens in the larger context will perhaps languidly manifest itself, and over a stretched period of time, but what does appear imminent is that those aspiring for grander future roles could soon end up losing even their current lofty perches. And judging from the severity of circumstances, Islamabad should feel exceptionally relieved if the demanded ‘corrective measures’ stopped at this. But it remains a highly unlikely eventuality. It’s not as if the original ‘official’ messenger hasn’t been in the midst of some really dangerous situations in the past as well, but this time around he appears to have made the cardinal mistake of choosing the wrong ‘unofficial messenger’ for conveying his master’s potentially self-destructive message. And therefore penance will be his to pay, the cross for him to carry.
Meanwhile, all fact-finding is over. The Big ones will now sit to eventually reshape the contours of the country’s future ruling structure. Of course, institutional queries will be made, questions posed, but it will be more of a formality as the answers to the yet unasked questions are already known. So what happens next, is the real question here.
In a related development, the office of National Security Advisor in each country was being perceived as the perfect focal point to coordinate strategy between India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US. Where needed, the office would have been created, or resurrected. With the four NSAs coordinating matters and even bypassing certain institutions and offices protocol-wise higher than their own, matters were expected to move at a much faster pace and in the desired direction. In the envisaged scheme of things, the NSA’s office would have been second in power only to that of the president and hence the desperate attempt to secure this all-important office. But for now at least, the concept appears a dead horse.
Exhaustive background interviews with those in the know reveal that a clear understanding now exists on what really needs to be done to put brakes on this runaway mandated autocracy passing itself off as elected democracy. The prevailing geopolitical situation however is momentarily staying the increasingly edgy hand. But for how long such international considerations will thwart domestic compulsions, is anybody’s guess. It was also shared that the public stance notwithstanding, privately the superpower’s interlocutors had been indicating their “ease” with dealing with “someone with real authority being directly in charge of things”. But the Mullen blow up has forced a mindset of extreme caution in Rawalpindi’s dealings with Washington even though the US political policy in the region is being dictated by its military and intelligence organs, both being areas of relative comfort for Rawalpindi.
The earlier professed desire of allowing democrats unfettered freedom to run things is also no longer being expressed by those who truly matter. Is the change of views being caused primarily by the growing pressure of increasingly restless colleagues, or is it based on a realistic reassessment of ground realities and complete disenchantment with the political masters? I asked someone extremely close to the alpha general, and he responded, “He is not someone who rigidly remains wedded to any notion without merit. He also does not leave things to chance or fate, or scores unsettled, and will not move a step on anything till he has carefully thought his way through, factored in all consequences of both, moving forward too fast, or even staying still for too long”.
There remains an institutional apprehension about political Islamabad rolling a desperate dice and causing a change at the top if too many questions are asked at this point about the memo. While there may be a few differing voices on this count, an institutional consensus appears to be in place that a change will definitely be caused post-March 2012 Senate elections, were the ruling political dispensation allowed to have its marauding ways till then. “If change in top command is brought in now, it would be for mala fide reasons and the institutional reaction will be as decisive, but come March it will be a different story,” was the assessment of a concerned three-star.
The potent mix to justify the hitherto unjustifiable appears to be in place. There is no governance per se anymore, anywhere. Law and order is conspicuous by its very absence. The economy is bankrupt. Corruption has touched unimaginable heights. Incompetence is the sole requirement for landing important government posts. The executive mocks judges. Court verdicts are not worth the paper they are typed on. Thousands of people are being pushed below the poverty line every day, while the ruling elite churns out new millionaires and billionaires by the week. Desperate circumstances have transformed ordinary masses into raving, raging mobs. The disconnect between the rulers and the ruled is absolute, and naked. We are hurtling towards being a failed State. So what is holding the natural ‘unnatural’ consequence from occurring? Concerns about international reactions, or the obligatory weight of a three-year extension? Should it not happen, no matter what? Is this criminalised democracy still the only or the better option available? I do not know, but we may get the answers sooner than we expect. REFERENCES: The memo Epicentre Between the lines - II BY Mohammad Malick Wednesday, October 26, 2011 The writer is editor The News, Islamabad. http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-74433-The-memo-Epicentre Now what?
Epicentre
Mohammad Malick
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 The writer was editor The News, Islamabad and now he is Managing Director of Pakistan Television Corporation http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-78908-Now-what No memo martyrs, please
Epicentre
Mohammad Malick ... The writer is editor The News, Islamabad.
Friday, December 23, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-83647-No-memo-martyrs-pleaseThe memo returns Epicentre by Mohammad Malick Wednesday, November 16, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-77746-The-memo-returns Gilded cage? Epicentre by Mohammad Malick Wednesday, December 14, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-82474-Gilded-cage Sitting on blisters Epicentre by Mohammad Malick Friday, January 13, 2012 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-87326-Sitting-on-blisters

The memo that saved Zardari — at what cost? A full inquiry needed into grave matter BY Shaheen Sehbai...News Analysis Saturday, October 15, 2011 DUBAI: The sensational Financial Times revelation about a secret memo from President Asif Ali Zardari to President Obama, through Admiral Mike Mullen, has exploded on the Pakistani political scene, with Opposition Leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali raising it in the National Assembly and TV channels speculating on its credibility. But some key facts are being ignored.
The first is the critical decision by the Financial Times, a newspaper of the highest repute and standing, to go ahead with the article written by Mansoor Ijaz, a US businessman of Pakistani origin who has a long history of interactions with the top Pakistani military and civilian leaders on key security issues, including governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in the 90s.
The FT is not likely to publish something which it cannot substantiate if it was so required, so any number of denials and clarifications by our diplomats or the presidency will only be for domestic consumption and would mean nothing. The US would, obviously not comment on any of this as policy.
The second, and larger issue, however, is what else was contained in the memorandum as reported in the FT Comment Page. The real facts would come out if and when the full text of that memo ever gets out. In my view, such memos are not a one-point declaration but contain a full case, argued on the basis of assumptions, promises and commitments in return for actions, assistance and public affirmations along particular policy lines.
If this is the case in this memo, then it is quite possible that for a huge favour like stopping the Pakistan Army from staging a coup against the civilian government, a lot more may have been offered and promised.
Some points raised in the FT article hint at these additional commitments. For example, what did Ijaz mean to tell us by writing about “a new national security team”. Could President Zardari have promised to remove the entire present leadership of the Pakistan Army, including General Kayani and General Pasha, and to bring in his own team, which would not be so resistant to the US demands of helping out the Americans in Afghanistan.
If evidence comes to light that this memo was sent through a top Pakistani diplomat, then there would be many questions about how our foreign office and foreign service are being run, because anything of this sort cannot simply pass through the normal Foreign Office channels and must have been done by bypassing all the established SOPs. In that case, a full and thorough probe needs to be carried out as to how and through which way this message was conveyed and what it contained.
The third key issue is the credibility of the writer, Mansoor Ijaz, a man once dubbed by our ambassador to Washington as the “silent billionaire”, a self-made man as one of the world’s top investment minds and with friends in the highest defence, national security and political echelons of many governments around the world, a man who surely doesn’t need the headache of dealing with our incestuous politics while he jets around the French Riviera.
Ijaz, it may be recalled, was involved in mediating in Sudan during the Clinton presidency, where he secured critical counter-terrorism assistance for the US authorities. He was also the man who worked behind the scenes to get a statement issued by the then Vice President Al Gore against a possible military coup during Benazir’s second tenure. In fact, I personally attended the event where Gore came to join Pakistani activists at a fundraiser and out of the blue ended his speech with the warning that no military coups would be tolerated in Pakistan.
Wajid Shamsul Hassan, the then Pakistan High Commissioner to UK, had specially flown to Washington to attend the event, knowing that such a statement would be made by Gore.
Again, during the Benazir government when Nawaz Sharif was the opposition leader, it was Mansoor Ijaz who arranged quietly for Sharif to meet with senior US national security officials at the White House when he could not get a phone call answered in Washington. He was deeply involved in bringing Sharif to a seminar held by the Carnegie Endowment on Pakistan’s nuclear programme to make Nawaz appear more rational when after an earlier statement had been made by Nawaz that Pakistan could explode the bomb. That was at least two or three years before Nawaz came back to power and officially made Pakistan a nuclear power.
In that event, when Maleeha Lodhi was the Pakistan Ambassador in US, a host of speakers took part in the seminar, including Lt Gen KM Arif and the then Editor Najam Sethi. Robin Raphael was the then Assistant Secretary of State. Mansoor Ijaz also made a speech in the seminar.
Nawaz Sharif spoke on the sensitive subject but refused to take any questions from the audience as this was his condition to participate in the seminar.
In 1999, just weeks after the bloodless coup that brought Pervez Musharraf to power, Mansoor Ijaz got involved in a much publicised effort to bring Pakistani and Indian sides closer to a solution on Kashmir and I know it for a fact that he had contacts with the ISI and the Indian intelligence leadership to go ahead with his effort. The summit between Musharraf and India’s Atal Behari Vajpayee in Agra came about much because of this ceasefire that was declared in the summer months of 2000.
Given this background, there cannot be any doubt that a senior Pakistani diplomat contacted Mansoor Ijaz with the message for the US leadership in the way the FT article revealed. Surely, the text of the memo to which Ijaz refers, which was finally sent on to Admiral Mike Mullen, must have been revised and written many times over, with each word carefully considered.
With such intense interactions, which must have taken place, there has to be a record of some kind, some telephone calls, some emails or SMS messages or other communication to prove that all this was going on before this memo was agreed to and then finally sent to the US. Whatever happened will come out, but the effect this memo had was astonishing, not for us but even for General Kayani as he reportedly went on record to express surprise that in Spain Admiral Mullen had a very cordial meeting with them and then two days later he came out with a charge against Pakistan Army. This matter appears to be much deeper than it looks and needs to be properly investigated by the Pakistani authorities. REFERENCE: The memo that saved Zardari — at what cost? A full inquiry needed into grave matter BY Shaheen Sehbai...News Analysis Saturday, October 15, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-9564-The-memo-that-saved-Zardari-%E2%80%94-at-what-cost Zardari feared military coup after Osama attack: report News Desk Wednesday, October 12, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-9493-Zardari-feared--military-coup-after-Osama-attack-report